Book Review: The Environmentalist’s Dilemma: Promise and Peril in and Age of Climate Crisis, by Arno Kopecky, ECW Press, 2021
Arno Kopecky* has collected a highly readable, and often humorous, series of essays related to the climate crisis. Published in 2021, some of the selections (the Alberta oil policies, the “end’ of the Trump era, the origins of Extinction Rebellion) may seem dated but offer interesting tidbits of recent history. However, his dissection of the conflicting choices faced by those who are informed, and acutely aware, of the enormous threats facing life on our planet is even more relevant now than ever. This review will focus on three particularly salient issues he addresses: debunking conspiracy theories, the failure of two prior efforts to mobilize political action on greenhouse gas emissions, and what each of us can do personally to contribute to environmental action as we confront our own fears and feeling of impotence.
But first, what is “the environmentalist’s dilemma?” According to Kopecky, human progress has meant prosperity and a better way of life for humanity (particularly in the more industrialized nations) at the cost of annihilating much of the other plant and animal life on earth. While polluting the air, land and water, heating the atmosphere and warming the oceans, “things have never been so good for humanity nor so dire for the planet…the same forces wiping these species out will eventually come for us” (pp.6-7). At an individual level, he recognizes how much he benefits from cheap energy, modern conveniences, ease of travel, etc., and the guilt that can result. That is the personal dilemma that activists face. He suggests that the tradeoff between human prosperity and planetary ecological collapse has shifted now, at least slightly, to a better grasp of what the future does hold if we stay on the present course. The Dilemma boils down to precisely this choice: “we are living on borrowed time – the worst is yet to come.” He then tries to raise and answer some of the complicated questions posed once this challenge is recognized.
To debunk conspiracy theories, much loved by the climate change deniers/skeptics, it helps to understand how they arise. The tension between truth and fiction is as old as Galileo and can be reduced to “everyone believes it so it must be true.” So when the two-century old starting point is questioned by new evidence (e.g. fossil fuels are essential for energy vs decarbonization requires transition to renewables), people try to reconcile these conflicting views. Drawing on the theory of cognitive dissonance, Kopecky gives examples of how the findings of the science of climate change, being incompatible with views that it is a hoax, is resolved by people choosing the “facts” they want to believe; therefore, they don’t have to admit their world is changing. He also gives a convincing argument against conspiracy claims by pointing out that thousands of climate scientists, meteorologists, biologists, journalists around the world, in cahoots with the scientists monitoring the satellite imagery of global weather patterns, would all have to agree to construct the “fake news” of climate change. He sees no easy answer other than being as honest about the evidence as possible and requiring politicians to do the same.
While the attempt to bring reality about carbon emissions to the climate change debate might seem to be a contemporary effort, in fact there were two other initiatives that failed. The first one was in the 1980’s, in the Reagan era, when two American scientists (James Hansen and Rafe Pomerance) gave testimony to Congress about their research on the huge increases in greenhouse gases and their effects on global warming. The next president (GHW Bush) said he would respond but instead the “fossil fuel lobby outmaneuvered their environmental counterparts” and economic pragmatism dominated the next decades. As Kopecky says, the environmentalists’ mistake was to assume that knowledge would lead to action; rather “then as now, the challenge isn’t merely to inform, it’s to awaken” (p.169). The second effort he credits to Al Gore’s 2006 movie, An Inconvenient Truth, which garnered media attention and political response from its graphic visuals about the dire impacts of climate change. Hurricane Katrina added to the message (perhaps as the devastation of Hurricane Helene has done in recent weeks). Again, no sustained response at the policy level occurred, and now we face our ‘third and final shot,’ as Kopecky refers to our current decade. Now we have lots of scary disasters to spur action, but he is concerned that much of the public has become numb or indifferent. His solution to making the fight against climate change appealing enough that people will vote for action is: “we tell good stories, that is how,” (p. 164), ones that are relatable and inject hope. Perhaps journalists and novelists and film makers will be more successful than scientists.
His book ends on a more personal note, that there is a profound dissonance built into our daily lives: “Set against the magnitude of this crisis, our inescapable smallness” (p 224). Being environmentally aware means that you know that none of your individual actions (eschew plastic, drive an EV, plant trees, compost waste, limit meat and dairy, etc.) will solve the biodiversity crisis or bring the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere closer to 350 parts per million. Those changes require action from government and industry. So, he says, let’s not downplay or get discouraged about the importance of voting. Individual behavior at the ballot box can transform into collective action in a democracy. But at the same time, he believes that there is personal benefit to doing what ever little things we can to give our lives purpose and meaning. “To eat with intention, to reduce our consumption of material goods, to drive a little less and walk a little more, and to choose our leaders carefully” (p.233) may not change the world but can make us feel better; and that also is important.
For SCAN members, this book provides a useful overview of climate change history and activism and provides some hopeful directions for the future. As the title suggests, he sees both promise and peril in the years ahead.
**********
Pat Erickson is a member of SCAN!’s Education Committee.
If you found this blog post interesting and informative, please consider joining the Education Committee and helping with our work. We also welcome comments and feedback. Please contact Sue Craig at susan.craig@sympatico.ca
*Arno Kopecky of Vancouver is an award-winning environmental journalist (for The Oil Man and the Sea) who has written widely on climate issues. In a recent piece in The Globe and Mail on Earth Day he described how he and his daughter planted a Douglas fir near her school in BC (April 20, 2024). He concluded with, “I can picture a time, 1000 years from now, when our descendants look back on the 21st century and say, Damn, that was close.”